Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security

Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/retrec

Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security Emmanuel Matsika a, *, Stefano Ricci b, Philip Mortimer c, Nikolay Georgiev d, Conor O’Neill a a

NewRail, Newcastle University, UK DICEA, Sapienza Università di Roma, Italy c Truck-Train Developments, UK d Higher School of Transport, Bulgaria b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online xxx

This paper starts with a discussion on typical vehicles. The concepts and the usual practice for rail wagon design, both freight and passengers are presented. A discussion on rail and the environment comes next followed by Truck-Trains. Accident theories, metaphors and investigation methods are widely discussed; Hazard e Barrier e Target Model, Swiss Cheese Model, Bow-Tie Model, Fault Tree Analysis and Event Tree Analysis are explained. This paper concludes with a technical discussion on safety and security of rail vehicles, standards for safety and measures against terrorist attacks. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rail vehicles Wagon design Truck-trains Accidents Incidents Safety Security

1. Typical railway vehicles Dr. Emmanuel Matsika, NewRail, Newcastle University

1.1. Introduction George Stephenson developed the first public train in 1825 with the prime purpose of transporting coal. The train was powered by steam which was generated from coal fired boilers. Most of the body structure was made of steel. Today, the rail industry has grown beyond the primary goal of transportation of coal to providing passenger service and transporting various types of cargo. The development of the rail industry has been driven by many factors, the key ones being advancement in technology, market demands, government policies (including standards) and constraints imposed by rail operations (Fig. 1). The structural design of rail vehicles has been moulded by the development of new materials and manufacturing processes. With the increase of top speeds to over 300 km/h, dynamic stability and aerodynamic drag have mandated the design of streamlined body shapes. Passenger demand for high speed but comfortable journeys

* Corresponding author. NewRail e Newcastle Centre for Railway Research, Faculty of Science, Agriculture and Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK. Tel.: þ44 (0) 191 222 8648. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Matsika).

has led to the development of axle and suspension systems with superior ride quality. One notable aspect of vehicle design is the change in propulsion. Today, one would hardly see a steam powered train as diesel and electrical propulsion account for nearly all public railways. Policies developed by governments and subsequent regulations and standards have continued to shape rail vehicle design. Regulations related to fire safety, crashworthiness, vibrations, pollution and noise. Table 1 summarises the designs factors. 1.2. Types of rail vehicles Broadly, there are two types of railway vehicles that exist e passenger vehicles (Fig. 2) and freight or cargo vehicles (Fig. 3). This difference in purpose drives the design requirements, and therefore operations. For passenger vehicles increased top speed, ride quality, interior environmental conditioning, crashworthiness, security, noise and application of fire retardant materials are key factors. On the other hand, for cargo transportation, many of these factors may not be critical. Traditionally, freight trains have tended to transport high density, low value goods (such as coal, aggregates, etc.). However, particularly with the introduction of inter-modal transport, the railway has seen an increase in low density high value goods being transported by rail. Market demand for the transportation of chilled and frozen goods has led to use of refrigerated wagons and also refrigerated containers.

0739-8859/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

2

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

Fig. 1. Factors that affect rail vehicle design.

Fig. 2. Passenger train. Source: TPE (2012).

another. This includes the dynamic characteristics, interior space design and exterior body streamlining.

1.3. Traction (propulsion) Traction of rail vehicles is generally achieved by the use of dedicated locomotives (Fig. 3). However in the recent past, particularly for passenger vehicles, multiple units (MUs) have been applied, which has the advantage of having an overall shorter train set. In passenger vehicles, each unit provides power for any auxiliary units of the train. The most common power source is diesel engines and electrical units (catenary/pantograph or third rail, with specific frequency and voltage). While electrical powering is preferred due to its relatively low environmental impact, it is not always possible to have rail infrastructure that has electrical systems. Subsequently, diesel units are sometimes applied. In some cases, hybrid and dual mode units are used. One relatively new technological application for passenger transportation is magnetic levitation (Maglev) (Fig. 4). It has the advantage of being environmentally friendly, and has superior ride quality. 1.4. Passenger railway vehicles From the functional design point of view, passenger vehicles are categorised depending on the market segment they intend to serve. Four categories exist, namely light rail (trams), metro (subway), heavy rail (general urban trains with top speeds of 100e160 km/h) and high speed trains (HST with top speeds of over 300 km/h). The design requirements are therefore different from one category to

1.5. Freight/cargo railway vehicles Freight vehicles are characterised by long train sets (Fig. 5) usually travelling at relatively low average speeds. Within Europe, the typical length of a public transportation train set is 200 me650 m. However, recently there has been a push to increase the length to between 750 m and 1000 m. Such increase, however, comes with operational challenges. The maximum speed experienced on European railways is 120e160 km/h, with an average speed of only 30e40 km/h. The non-streamlined characteristic of most wagons tends to increase aerodynamic drag and dynamic instability. 1.5.1. Types of wagons The key factors which determine wagon design are: type of goods to be transported, functional design, load carrying capacity, structural design and dynamic performance. Fundamentally, it is the type of goods that determine the type of wagon to use. These include:  Flat wagon (for containers, logs, pipes, and piggyback);  Box wagon (covered or open for palletised goods, coal, aggregate, etc);  Hoppers (aggregate, grain, coal, etc);  Tankers (oil, chemicals, etc);

Table 1 Factors that drive rail vehicle design. Design factor

Examples

Market demand

   

Technology

Government policy

Operational requirements

          

Type of goods Value of goods Cost of purchase/running costs Vehicle performance (acceleration, deceleration, vibrations, aerodynamic, etc) Structural Materials Joining technologies Environment (CO2, Oil spillages, energy) Noise Standards (TSIs) (structural integrity, crashworthiness, accessibility, FST, etc) Logistics Security Safety Infrastructure (track gauge, loading gauge, catenary voltage, etc) time tabling

Fig. 3. Cargo train. Source: Thai Mass Transportation (2012).

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

3

Fig. 6. Three piece bogie. Source: Railway Technology (2012a).

Fig. 4. Maglev train. Source: BBC (2012).

 Refrigerated (foods, agricultural products, etc);  Specialised such as: B Vehicle transportation; B Abnormal loads; B Timber/logs. 1.6. Running gear and suspension system 1.6.1. Bogies Most rail vehicles today are fitted with bogies, which are responsible for the actual traction, wheeletrack contact force, ride quality, vibrations, most of the noise and load bearing. Fig. 6 shows a typical three piece bogie. To minimise vibrations, a suspension system comprising springs and dampers is fitted. Depending on the application, coil, leaf and pneumatic springs are fitted. The dynamic characteristics of a typical rail vehicle fitted with bogies is quite complex, typically with minimum of 19 DOF, accounting for linear and angular motion of the bogie and the body structure in the longitudinal, transverse and vertical axes. 1.6.2. Braking system The braking system is one of the most critical systems of a rail vehicle because of the high momentum gained by a train set. Braking is achieved through a pneumatic system, which is a challenge considering that the air pressure takes a long time to build along the lengthy train set. Traditionally, tread brakes have been fitted. Although with calls to reduce noise pollution, many vehicles are now being fitted with disc brakes (a technology which has been

applied in the automotive industry for many years). Nevertheless, many freight wagons still use tread brakes fitted with cast iron shoes. The remedy for noise now is the use of composite blocks. In some designs to increase the braking force and thereby reduce the braking distance, rail vehicles are now employing track sanding technologies. With energy efficiency being an important consideration in the transport sector, electrically driven vehicles are increasingly applying regenerative braking systems. 1.7. Auxiliary components 1.7.1. Buffers Fitted at the ends of the vehicle frames, buffers are projecting shock-absorbing pads which when vehicles are coupled, are brought into contact with those on the next vehicle. 1.7.2. Couplers A coupling (or a coupler) is a mechanism for connecting rolling stock in a train. 1.8. Structural materials Materials selection plays a pivotal role in the design of rail vehicles. Important factors that influence the type of materials to be used include the following:      

Function/structural; Environment; Cost; Manufacturing/joining Technologies; Lightweighting; Fire Smoke and Toxicity.

Traditionally, mild steel has been applied in the construction of vehicle bodies. However, due to a push for lightweighting, other materials are gaining ground. These include high performance steels, aluminium alloys and composites. Composites are being applied mainly due to their lightweight and Fire Smoke and Toxicity (FST) properties. They come in form of laminates and sandwiches, sheet moulding compounds and fibre reinforced polymers. In some cases, they drive down costs. Figs. 7e10 show some examples of composite materials applied in passenger vehicles.

Fig. 5. Typical freight vehicle. Source: The Conversation (2012).

1.8.1. Laminates A sandwich-structured composite is fabricated by attaching two thin but stiff skins to a lightweight but thick core. The core material is normally low strength material, but its higher thickness provides the sandwich composite with high bending stiffness with overall low density.

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

4

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

Fig. 7. Laminates/sandwiches. Source: Railway Technology (2012b). Fig. 9. Sandwich on buffer. Source: McConnel (2008).

1.8.2. Sheet moulding compounds Sheet moulding compound (SMC) or sheet moulding composite is a ready to mould fibre-reinforced polyester material primarily used in compression moulding. 1.8.3. Phenolic prepregs These are used for seats, ceilings, floorings, bulkheads, vestibules, fire barriers, wall panels, window surrounds, doors, corridor adapter frames, staircases, luggage bins/racks, fairings, and toilet modules. 1.9. Cargo handling Particularly for cargo, the design of wagons is closely linked with cargo handling. There must be a good interface between the wagon and the load it carries, and the way the load is loaded and unloaded on the wagon. 1.10. Design issues for future rail vehicles As the development of the rail vehicle continues, there are issues that need further research. These include:       

Wheeletrack contact forces; Lightweighting; Sustainable Materials; Environment (CO2, Energy, Noise, etc); Interoperability (gauge, voltage, speed, etc); Aerodynamics; Passengerefreight vehicle mixed running.

Fig. 8. Phenolic composites. Source: Asia Airports News (2010).

2. Rail and the environment Prof. Stefano Ricci, DICEA, Sapienza Università di Roma 2.1. Concepts of externalities and life cycle In the classical economy a producer of goods or services can bring advantages and/or disadvantages to other participants of the economic system without a corresponding increase (income) or decrease (payment) of resources. Therefore, these effects are not reflected by market prices and are “External” to the economic system itself. Typical examples of this phenomenon in railway transport systems are: 1. Income generated by a metro station for subjects not directly involved in the metro system as passengers or transport operators (e.g. commercial activities around the metro station); 2. Noise generated by freight trains disturbing people living along the railway lines or terminals not directly involved in the freight transport system as shipped freight users or transport operators (e.g. citizens of a town which contains freight railway infrastructure). The resulting externalities can be classified into various types, mainly according to the practical feasibility of their translation into external costs: 1. It is possible to directly translate into external costs for producers and/or users (e.g. additional travel time due to congestion); 2. It is possible to directly translate into external costs for the Community (e.g. additional costs for noise protection barriers);

Fig. 10. Sheet moulding compound. Source: McConnel (2008).

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

5

3. It is not possible to directly translate into external costs (e.g. permanent damages to monuments due to vibrations or loss of lives due to accidents). For the first type of externalities many studies have been developed in order to achieve a homogenous and recognised methodology for their quantification. Some results of one of the most systematic and updated among these studies (Van Essen et al., 2011), are illustrated in Figs. 11 and 12; allowing for interesting comparisons, for freight and passengers systems, among unit costs (Euro by tonne  km and by passenger  km) and global values (taking into account traffic density of various systems) for different types of externalities (cost categories) and transport modes: accidents (43%) and climate changes (29%) are the most relevant cost categories, as well as road based transport, responsible for 92% of quantified costs (rail freight and passengers components not exceeding 2%). The Life Cycle concept is normally applied to any engineering product (System) and can be split into logical and procedural phases. By defining the Railway system as the integration of the following sub-systems:  Infrastructure;  Vehicle;  Service (defining how, where and when the Vehicles are going to run on the Infrastructure). For application in terms of rail we can consider the sequence of Life-cycle (LC) phases, as presented in Table 2 reflected by specific engineering activities for infrastructure, vehicle and service subsystems.

2.2. Environmental components affected by railway transport systems For the central LC phase it is possible to identify:  the main outputs of the phase;  the most consolidated procedure for the environmental assessment at that phase based on the typical environment components;  the effects of the environmental assessment on the following LC phases.

Fig. 12. Relevance of the transport modes. Source: Van Essen et al. (2011).

The components are normally assessed with reference to general categories, an aggregation of ecological, cultural and economic interests to be considered into the LC processes according to various points of view (e.g. Community represented by public administrators, infrastructures managers, transport operators or final customers) (Tables 3 and 4). Moreover the component assessment is based on their disaggregation/aggregation into railway relevant factors (Table 5). The relevance of these factors is analysed with more detail in the following part of the study, on the basis of results of recognised studies and statistical analysis (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2009) (http://www.eea.europa.eu) (UIC & CER, 2008). Energy consumption and CO2 emissions, in 2007, in the European Union accounted respectively for about 21% (USA 27%, Japan 17%) and 24% (USA 31%, Japan 21%) of global values (Fig. 13). Taking into account the whole system: traction þ fixed plants (e.g. signalling) þ on-board auxiliaries (e.g. air conditioning), the role of rail based systems in these energy consumption figures is anyway negligible (less than 1%). Though the general trend in other productive sectors is different, greenhouse gas emissions in transport have increased by about 25% for the period 1990e2010 whereas railways experienced in a similar period (1990e2005) decreases of about 9% for passengers and 28% for freight traffic, for these emissions (Fig. 14). Noise is generated variably according to the speed, traction equipment, vehicleeinfrastructure (wheelerail and pantographe

Table 2 Life-cycle phases.

Fig. 11. Relevance of the cost categories. Source: Van Essen et al. (2011).

Life cycle phase

Infrastructure

Vehicle

Service

Needs identification and problem position Conceptual design Preliminary design Detailed design and development Production/construction Operation Monitoring Maintenance Phase out and disposal

Service needs

Service needs

Demand needs

Requirements 3D Geometry Planning phases

Requirements Architecture Planning phases

Requirements Frequency Timetabling

Field works Running Inspections Field works Removal

Manufactory Running Diagnostics Workshops Scrapping

e Running Dispatching Rescheduling e

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

6

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

Table 3 Life-cycle phases and components. Life cycle phases

Output

Procedures

Conceptual design Preliminary design Detailed design and development Production/construction Operation

Scenarios Alternatives Components integration System Traffic

Eco-balance Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental requirements Supervision Monitoring

catenary) interaction and vehicleeair (aerodynamics) interaction (Working Group Railway Noise of the European Commission, 2003) (Fig. 15). The vibrations, which propagate themselves by the lithosphere, are mainly due a) to the wheel-rail interaction, both as feel able vibrations (4e80 Hz), with low attenuation and whole body vibration in near buildings; b) to ground-borne noise (30e200 Hz): exciting bending resonance in floors and walls, which radiate rumbling noise into the rooms (Fig. 16). Electric rail transport is free of direct local air pollution. Moreover new engines and exhaust after-treatment systems are reducing the air local emissions caused by rail diesel traction. The global figures, Figs. 17e19 (UIC & CER, 2008) show the relatively low value of these emissions in comparison with other transport modes, both for freight and passengers, and for NOx and PM10, also according to the planned EU emission regulations. Finally main land intrusion factors by transport infrastructures are: a) the actual space taken for infrastructure sealing of top soil, b) the fragmentation and degradation of the natural or urban landscape due to “barrier” effects of the infrastructure, c) urban sprawl causing the inefficient development and use of urban land. But Railway externalities are less negative relative to other transport modes, as firstly it occupies 2e3 times less land per passenger/ freight unit than other transport modes and secondly, it occupies less than 2% of the land globally used for transport infrastructures, yet it maintains 6e10% of global market share (capacity of about 9000 passengers/h for 1 m of infrastructure width, in comparison with 1500 passenger/h for buses and 200 passengers/h for cars).

Components

Effects Planning Dimensioning Technologies and materials Processes and techniques Performances

An example of energy consumption reduction by driver behaviour is the use of energy metering systems (METROMISER, CATO, DSM), which have been shown to reduce energy consumption by 10e25% without a penalty on punctuality. Implemented examples of active energy consumption reduction by vehicles and plants design are related to various operational measures and technologies. The average potential reductions (in brackets) of most of them have been assessed within the ECORAILS European Research Project:  Braking energy recovering: B super capacitors in fixed installation or on-board (>20%); B heating a fluid in fixed installation for the production of electric power (>20%); B use for auxiliary or comfort functions in dieseleelectric stock (2O5%).  Traction energy saving: B energy storage in diesel-electric vehicles (>10%); B common Rail/modernised diesel engines (>10%); B HTSC/Medium frequency transformer (2e13%); B switch-off of traction groups (2e5%); B ventilation control according to actual demand (2e5%).  Train mass reduction: B double-decked stock or high/low capacity trains (>10%); B multiple units instead of loco hauled trains (5O10%); B single-axle bogies or consecutive coaches resting on shared bogies (2O10%); B aluminium car bodies (2e5%); B light interior coach equipment (2e5%).

2.3. Environmental capacity: concepts and applications For any transport system the carrying capacity is normally defined as the maximum amount of traffic units safely running on the infrastructure. Therefore the constraining requirement is safety. The environmental capacity is here defined as the maximum amount of traffic units running under environmentally sustainable conditions on a transport infrastructure. The constraining requirement is environmental sustainability, which can be required at global level (e.g. energy consumption reduction due to speed reduction on night services) or local level (e.g. noise and vibrations limitation as a result of speed/traffic reduction in sensible corridors or chemical pollution limitation due to diesel traffic reduction). The most effective actions to increase the environmental capacity of railways have been analysed by component.

Implemented examples of active noise and vibration reduction by vehicle and infrastructure design are again related to various operational measures and technologies and have been identified within the ECORAILS European Research Project:  retrofitting of existing railway rolling stock;  noise reception limits;  noise emission ceiling and regulation (e.g. pass-by level in dBA at 7.5 m);  noise emission limits for new freight wagons;  access restrictions for noisy vehicles/trains;  programs to manage rail roughness;  instrument for track upgrading or new design:  regulations for tracks;

Table 4 Components and categories. Components

Categories

Atmosphere Lithosphere Hydrosphere Biosphere Landscape Historical and cultural vales Land use

Ecology

Table 5 Main railway relevant environmental factors. Culture

Economy

Main railway relevant environmental factors: disaggregation/aggregation of components Energy consumption and climate changes Noise and vibrations Pollution Land use and landscape

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

7

Fig. 15. Sound pressure levels as function of train speed.

3. Truck-trains Fig. 13. Emissions by mode. Source www.ecopassenger.org, 2008.

Philip Mortimer, Truck-Train Developments  specifications for noise emissions in procuring/ordering vehicles and tracks;  incentives for the use of low noise vehicles;  public funding for noise abatement programs;  voluntary agreements;  research and development;  information to stakeholders. Finally the following infrastructure designs/methods have been used to reduce land use and the intrusive factor of infrastructure:  transport infrastructure investment in favour of lower land consuming infrastructures: approach similar to Trans European Transport Networks (TEN-T) favouring railways in comparison with roads;  locating railway lines and plants in a potentially low impact environment (underground and/or multi-infrastructure corridors);  specialisation of areas to railway use (sensible subjects to be transferred into more suitable environment);  impact reduction by compatible context reconstruction (by perimeter identification, visual valorisation, choice of suitable materials);  increasing accessibility (e.g. barrier effect limitation by walking and/or cycling infrastructures).

Fig. 14. Emission (both passengers and freight).

3.1. TruckTrain: what is it? TruckTrainÒ is a genuinely innovative concept in rail freight transportation designed to secure modal shift to rail on merit, increase the utilisation of the UK’s existing rail infrastructure while significantly reducing costs for operators and customers. It will also reduce the impact of road haulage on the UK’s road transport network and environmental profiles. It is a concept that can be configured for international markets where it will have a similar cost/benefit impact. The underlying technology is protectable by patents or patents pending and design rights. The project has developed from a significant investment in research into the freight transport market to determine. 3.2. TruckTrainÒ concept The TruckTrainÒ is a short, fast, self propelled, diesel-electric bidirectional freight train designed for intensive high-productivity, cost effective and profitable operation. The current focus on diesel electric traction is designed to allow system wide deployment in the UK where electrification is not yet fully developed on a system wide basis. TruckTrain takes the form of fixed-formation multiple units of between two and seven cars, which can be linked together into trains of up to 12 cars. It fills a gap in the market between the 400 articulated road truck and large freight

Fig. 16. Soil vibrations.

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

8

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

Fig. 17. Local air pollution. Source: Ecopassenger (2008).

trains. TruckTrainÒ enables the transfer of high value and time sensitive freight movement from road to rail (modal shift) which is a central plank of national and EU government policy. Conventional freight trains have been unable to achieve much by way of modal shift, having only a 2e3% revenue share of the £40bn UK internal logistics market. It achieves benefits by a combination of its unique performance characteristics e it is able to accelerate on a par with a passenger train e and the scheduling of its operation which takes advantage of existing gaps in rail schedules. To provide an efficient interface with road transport it is able to make use of a much wider network of rail depots than is possible with conventional train technology. It also uses technologies which are already accepted and certificated for use on the UK rail network. Part of the productivity enhancement and enabling of hitherto road-only flows will come from an Integrated Control and Brokerage Centre providing real-time schedule adaptation, uninterruptible traceability and real-time cargo condition monitoring. The key to the underpinning competitive economics of the TruckTrain is realised through intensive application in service with a minimum of down time for servicing and maintenance. The project has focused on factor level increases in availability and

productivity compared with orthodox trains. This is achieved by a combination of the innovative technologies embedded in the core design and the tiers of systems designed to maximise operational and commercial performance. TruckTrain will provide significant improvements for all stakeholders in transit times and reliability, consignment flexibility, traceability, control and overall costs. The usual ownership structure of railway capital assets means that TruckTrainÒ will also create a significant (£4e5Bn) new leasing opportunity. There are currently no known competitor short freight train concepts.

Fig. 18. PM10 engine limits. Source: EEA (2005).

Fig. 19. NOx engine limits. Source: EEA (2005).

3.3. Benefits TruckTrainÒ brings numerous benefits compared to both road haulage and an orthodox locomotive-hauled freight train:  Commercial advantages e TruckTrainÒ is predicted to be at least 15% cheaper per mile than a 400 road vehicle, allowing owners and operators to double their net profit margin while still undercutting road-only haulage operators.

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

 Using orthodox technologies and systems in a wholly new package with much more intensive asset utilisation and management. Maximum payload of 60 tonnes per vehicle/ 180 cubic metres of stowage space per vehicle in logistics applications. Maximum flexibility to accommodate a wide mix of container dimensions. Under deck location preferred to maximise available cargo space.  Real time technical and cargo condition monitoring, crew and resource planning including very short term train path planning and assignment.  Use of new systems e including the emergent Freight Arranger cargo space identification and booking system.  Increased infrastructure utilisation e Typically a TruckTrainÒ formation accelerates, travels and brakes at modern passenger train levels of performance. Consequently, TruckTrainÒ can exploit any passenger quality train paths which ordinary freight trains are unable to use. This allows TruckTrainÒ to use the rail network in places and at times of the day to extend the operational and commercial reach of rail freight which ordinary freight trains cannot.  Reduced carbon emissions e TruckTrainÒ delivers a 40e50% reduction in carbon emissions compared to an equivalent road vehicle; freight movement by heavy road vehicles produces 4.8% of total UK carbon emissions, at a time when the major retailers are under pressure to reduce carbon emission in their supply chains. The use of a hybrid electro-diesel variant with the ability to use any available electrified lines further enhances the green credentials of the TruckTrainÒ.  Real estate advantages e The size of the terminal needed to load and unload the TruckTrainÒ and its cost are reduced to fractions of those usually encountered, As a consequence, many hundreds more UK locations become potentially available for use as a rail freight terminal with the resultant modal shift to rail and participation by rail in road dominated flows. The potential enhancement of site values could be significant.  Increased efficiency e To maintain its high-productivity, reliability and commercial potential TruckTrainÒ will be equipped with a real-time location, cargo-monitoring and engineering condition communications system. This will link to a 24/365 operations room with real time information on train crew hours and availability, and direct access to Network Rail’s train scheduling IT for monitoring and immediate re-planning, road hauliers and terminals and critically to shippers’ own logistics information systems.  Customer Service e based on increased speed, reliability and consistent delivery frequency. Rail has a tenuous hold on the freight market. It is dominated by flows of low value high bulk commodities many of which are not particularly time sensitive. Coal, aggregates and ores remain major sources of traffic but these are not particularly demanding in terms of performance and reliability. The high value time sensitive markets made up of food stuffs, retail store goods, parcels and small lot logistics which demand unfailing reliability have largely been beyond the willingness and capability of the rail sector. Understandably participation in such demanding flows are low. Rail’s share of growing commodity and traffic volumes is limited by technology, service and product offer limitations. As a consequence rail has a small or declining share of a growing market for transport and logistics. Rail’s existing technology sets, operational, technical and commercial models are not appropriate, attractive, cost effective or competitive to a wide market which could use rail if there was a significant shift away from the limitations of the present methods and systems. Rail has to face aggressive, near universal competent competition from the roads freight sector which has

9

been quick to capitalise on rail’s failings by offering services, prices and products which rail largely fails to recognise as being desirable. Rail has immense potential advantages in the form of energy efficiency, a unique capability to use a mix of fuels to generate power for electric traction, high speed and high weight capabilities and operation within a controlled safe and secure environment. These advantages are diluted by a fixation with large trains as the only product and service model. One size does fit all and the big train template is not attractive to 80% of the freight market. Rail is not accessible (physically or commercially) or even recognised by many shippers and forwarders or is seen as a carrier of last resort. Truckers dominate the freight market in terms of sector lengths and commodity flows because the road freight operators have delivered in terms of accessibility, response time, reliability, security, prices and general competence. Rail needs to emulate the success of the road freight sector and not remain locked into a service and operational model that limits market acceptance. There is no middle ground between the large train option or a truck as the default option. Rail has no credible cost effective small or intermediate service offer. TruckTrainÒ is designed to bridge this gap. A computer generated graphic of a TruckTrain cab unit in container carrying configuration is shown in Fig. 20. Logistics (inter-modal and conventional traffic) is a demanding, aggressive and generally low margin sector but it is vital to supporting modern economies and expectations. Rail services using orthodox methods are deemed to be competitive at breakeven thresholds of w240 km which automatically takes rail out of contention in a huge market for freight. The domination of the rail network by passenger priorities also constrains rail freights capabilities leading to concerns over speed compatibility and capacity issues. To break out of these constraints there is a need for genuine market led innovation which exploits rail’s generic strengths to a much greater level. This needs to ensure a reduction in the overall cost base of rail linked to higher productivity and more intensive use of the assets by design and profound changes (and challenges) to operational orthodoxy. There is a need for genuinely innovative concepts in rail freight. This implies the need for much more installed power in the train (10 hp/tonne) capable accelerating to line speed and for equivalent high performance braking to minimise delay on following trains. Short fast train formations endow operational flexibility and the ability to use passenger quality train paths and infrastructure. The short trains align much better with smaller and intermittent traffic flows that in aggregate make up the greater part of the UK freight market. The short formation also extends the commercial and operational “reach” of rail and potentially delivers 15% savings over road freight.

Fig. 20. TruckTrainÒ design: Computer generated graphic of a TruckTrain cab unit in container carrying configuration. Source: Image generated by author.

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

10

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

The short formation concept requires smaller terminals but offers the potential for these to be spread over a much wider area to minimise road traffic for delivery and collection. Small simple and austere terminals using existing redundant rail sites could be envisaged and be much simpler than orthodox configurations because of the elimination of the need for run round loops. New sites being developed for logistics could much more easily accept a rail option using this sort of concept. The core vehicle design will have a payload of 60 tonnes on a tare weight of <30 tonnes and will aim to maximise the cargo volume in a logistics version. Both configurations will embody a high degree of commonality in terms of major components such as the modular frame, bogies, power train, auxiliaries, brakes, fuel systems and exhaust ducts. The option to move to an above deck engine location, feasible with the modular frame, would allow a hicube capability over a wider rail network. The trains should be able to attain 300,000 km per year in service and have a maximum speed capability of 140 kph. Braking will employ a mix of disc and rheostatic braking. Power from the engine will be available to operate reefer containers which will allow rail to participate in flows beyond current capability. Powering options include the initial use of diesel electric traction (a power pack on every vehicle with all axles powered electrically) to maximise network operation and a hybrid to use overhead power where available. A fully electrified version is also feasible. The development of the concept into other railway domains with more generous loading gauge limits would further reinforce the capabilities of the concept. TruckTrainÒ represents a single amalgamation of technologies in an innovative and credible configuration which has evolved from a mass of technical, economic, commercial and operational research. It will be fully competitive with road transport over a range of sector lengths and will be attractive to smaller and intermittent flows of cargo which are of little interest to the present technical, operational and commercial model of rail freight which is obsessed by large train formations. TruckTrain unlocks the potential to realise a significant and sustained modal shift to rail on merit. 4. Accident investigation and analysis Prof. Nikolay Georgiev, Higher School of Transport 4.1. What is an accident?  By dictionary definition: an unforeseen event, an unexpected happening;  From rail operational experience: an unwanted and unintended sudden event or a specific chain of such events which have harmful consequences. Depending on certain criteria, accidents may be divided into different categories: serious accident, accident, incident.

operators, the supplies and also the environment. Since nothing is perfect e some of the system responses to changes (internal or environmental) are unforeseen, are causes of incidents, and can potentially lead to serious accidents. 2. High-Reliability Theory (Sagan, 1993): while incidents may be normal, serious ones (accidents) can be prevented by implementing certain practices, e.g.: organizational acquisition of knowledge of incidents (so called incident learning). The combination of these two theories leads to the next conclusion: While the occurrence of incidents may be normal, an organisation with an effective incident learning system can respond to these incidents to prevent serious accidents from occurring in the future. Fig. 21 shows the main components of an incident learning system.

4.2. Objectives of accident investigation and analysis There may be different purposes for the initiation of accident investigations. The chief ones may be summarized as follows:  Identification and description of the true course of events (what, where, when);  Identification of the causes (contributing factors) of the accident (why);  Identification of the risk reducing measures to prevent future, comparable accidents (learning);  Analysis and evaluation of the basis for potential criminal prosecution (blame);  Response to the question of guilt in order to assess the liability for compensation (pay). Depending on the scope of the investigation, as well as targets, the list could be greatly expanded (Objectives such as: prevention of company resource losses, improvement of company function (as well as operating efficiency, quality control and reliability), education of managers, supervisors and operational staff, etc. could be added to the list mentioned above). Definitions and terms used in railway operational safety and accident investigation: The most important and often used definitions are (CENELEC, 2007; Sklet, 2002):  Event: a significant and real-time phenomenon that happens. For example: the technical failure of a type of railway rolling stock which is being studied can be viewed as an event.  Causal factors: a set of typical events which under certain conditions may have a negative influence on the operational

According to EU Directive 2004/49/EC, Article 3: “Serious accident” means any train collision or derailment of trains resulting in the death of at least one person or serious injuries to 5 or more persons or extensive damage (more than V2 million) to rolling stock, infrastructure or the environment. 4.1.1. Could all accidents have been prevented? The answer is related to two competing and complementary theories: 1. Normal Accident Theory (Perrow, 1984): in systems that humans design, build and run, nothing can be perfect. Every part of such a system is subject to failure: the design can be faulty, as can the equipment, the procedures, the human

Fig. 21. Main components of an incident learning system.

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

process (i.e. they have the potential to produce or contribute to an unwanted result). Depending on their nature, the causal factors fall into three main categories: technical factors (all kinds of railway technical equipment failures), subjective factors (humaneoperator errors) and influence of operational environment (the influence of other transport systems, weather conditions, etc.).  Hazard: an operating state of a railway system (subsystem) with the potential for an accident. The hazard is a consequence of the negative impact of a causal factor and, if there is no an adequate barrier, could easily lead to an accident.  Target: person(s) or object (equipment, rolling-stock, freight, etc.) that a hazard may damage, injure, or fatally harm.  Barrier: anything used to control, prevent or impede one or more hazards. Common types of barriers include equipment, administrative and operational procedures (also rules), supervision/ management, warning devices, knowledge and skills, etc.  Cause of accident: a concrete manifestation of a causal factor. There are three types of accident causes: root cause, direct cause, contributing cause. B The root cause creates the potential for an accident occurrence. It is the most basic and fundamental cause that addresses classes of deficiencies, rather than single problems or faults. The correction of root causes would not only prevent the same accident recurring in future, but would also solve management system deficiencies that could cause or contribute to other accidents. B The immediate event or condition that causes the accident is named direct cause. This cause creates the immediate conditions for the conversion of the potential possibility of the occurrence of an accident into reality. The direct cause should be mandatory identified when it facilitates an understanding of why the accident occurred or when it is useful in developing lessons to be learnt from the accident. B The contributing cause(s) is (are) event(s) or condition(s) that collectively with other causes increases the likelihood of a railway accident but individually do not cause the accident. Contributing causes may be long-standing conditions or a series of prior events that, alone, were not sufficient to cause the accident, but were necessary for it to occur.  Railway accident: an unwanted and unintended sudden event or a specific chain of such events which have harmful consequences. Depending on certain criteria, accidents could be divided into different categories. For example in terms of their severity they are classified as (in decreasing order) serious accident, accident, and incident.  Risk: a combination of the rate of occurrence of a type of accident (incident) resulting in harm (caused by a hazard) and the degree of severity of that harm. Mathematically this definition could be represented as: Risk ¼ Rate of accidents  Degree of severity (harm) (Kaplan & Garrick, 1981).  Tolerable risk: the maximum level of risk in a railway technical or technological system that is acceptable in accordance with respective safety requirements of Railway Authority.  Safety: a freedom from unacceptable risks. Safety can be considered as: functional, technical and procedural. That part of safety that is dependent upon the functions of a railway system (subsystem) within the normal transportation process (in response to the negative influence of causal factors) is named functional safety. The technical safety depends on the technical characteristics of equipment derived from the system (whose part this equipment is) requirements and/or from the system design whilst the procedural safety depends on operational (or maintenance) procedures (rules).

11

4.3. Accident causation theories and metaphors The Hazard e Barrier e Target Model sees accidents as a result of a continuous threat (hazard) on a target (Fig. 22). The target is shielded from the hazard by a barrier. There may be one barrier but there could also be several. These barriers must be maintained. The maintenance of the barrier has to be secured by a Barrier e Management System (also called Safety Management System). Barriers may be imperfect or absent as a result of technical or human failure. The Swiss Cheese Model develops the Hazard e Barrier e Target Model one step further. According to this metaphor, in a complex system, hazards are prevented from causing accidents by a series of barriers (Fig. 23). Each barrier has unintended weaknesses or holes e hence the similarity with Swiss cheese. These weaknesses are not constant e i.e., the holes open and close at random. When by chance all holes are aligned, the hazard reaches the target. The barriers can be of any type. Typically design, construction, operation and maintenance are included. Defects (holes) in the barriers can be latent, as other barriers prevent the progression of the cause to an accident. The Bow-Tie Model: This model considers not only the causes of accidents but also the consequences, such as material damages, health effects or even deaths. Barriers can be put in the path from cause to accident, but also from accident to consequence. As there can be many causes of a single accident and an accident may have a variety of consequences, the diagrams depicting this idea have the form of a Bow-Tie (Fig. 24). The essence and the main stages of accident investigation process: Accident investigation: a process conducted for the purpose of accident and incident prevention which includes the gathering and analysis of information, the drawing of conclusions (including the determination of causes) and, when appropriate, the making of safety recommendations (Fig. 25). 4.3.1. Preliminary actions  Initial accident reporting and categorisation.  Readiness team actions: Secures scene, takes witness statements, preserves evidence, etc.  Appointing Official selects Investigation Board (the permanent investigation body supplemented by any necessary experienced experts).  The Investigation Board arrives at accident site and takes the responsibility for investigation activities. Investigation board activities:  Collection, preservation, and verification of evidence;  Integration and analysis of evidence to determine causal factors;  Determination of causal factors;

Fig. 22. Hazard e Barrier e Target Model. Source: adapted from Schupp, Smith, Wright, and Goossens (2004) and Ale (2009).

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

12

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

Fig. 25. Three stages of investigation process.

events leading to the accident and the conditions affecting these events (Fig. 26).

Fig. 23. The Swiss cheese model. Source: adapted from Reason (1990) and Ale (2009).

 Development of conclusions and determination of the necessity for additional information;  Preparation of a draft report. Final actions:  Organisations involved in the accident conduct factual accuracy review of the report;  Investigation Body finalises the draft report;  Appointing Official accepts the report. 4.4. Accident investigation methods There are a variety of methods for accident investigation. They could be divided into two basic categories:  Techniques providing a systematic, graphical and structured framework to aid the collection of information by identifying where gaps in the understanding of event chains lie: Events and Causal Factors Charting, Multiple Events Sequencing, Sequentially Timed Events Plotting Procedure, etc.  Techniques used to ascertain the critical events and actions, and thus the direct causes of the incident. They allow modelling of the accident scenario: Barrier Analysis, Change Analysis, Fault Tree Analysis, Event Tree Analysis, etc.

4.4.2. Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) An FTA is a deductive methodology (Ericson, 2005). That is, it involves reasoning from the general to the specific, working backwards through time to examine preceding events leading up to a given failure. A fault tree is a graphic model that displays the various logical combinations of events or conditions that can result in an accident, as shown in Fig. 27. These combinations may include equipment failures, human errors and management system failures. The tree starts with the so called “top event” which is a specific undesired event (accident) or system condition. This top event is then broken down into a series of contributory events that are structured according to certain rules and logic. This process of breaking down the events continues until the base events (accident causes) are identified. 4.4.3. Event Tree Analysis (ETA) ETA is an analysis technique for identifying and evaluating the sequence of events in a potential scenario following the occurrence of a given initiating event (accident). ETA utilizes a visual logic tree structure known as event tree (Ericson, 2005). The objective of ETA is to determine whether the initiating event will develop into a serious mishap or if the event is sufficiently controlled by the safety systems and procedures implemented in the system design. An ETA can result in many different possible outcomes from a single initiating event, and it provides the capability to obtain a probability for each outcome. 5. Safety and security of rail vehicles

4.4.1. Events and Causal Factors Charting The main purpose of Events and Causal Factors Charting is to identify and plot the sequence of events from the beginning to the end of an accident, and to identify the factors, conditions, failed barriers, energy flows, etc. that contributed to the accident (Sklet, 2002). The Events and Causal Factors Chart is easy to develop and provides a clear depiction of the accident data by illustrating and validating (with the usage of standard symbols) the sequence of

Fig. 24. The Bow-Tie model. Source: adapted from Ale (2009).

Conor O’Neill, NewRail, Newcastle University 5.1. Definitions Safety and security are often compartmentalised together when it comes to the operation of rail vehicles, and while there are a number of benefits in doing this, it is often easier to treat safety

Fig. 26. Examples of an Events and Casual Factors Chart.

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

13

Fig. 28. Structural design categories of railway vehicles. Source: EN 12663.

Tables within the standard list the longitudinal and vertical loads that a vehicle must withstand depending on the category within which it resides. For example, a Category P-II (Fig. 28) vehicle will need to withstand the longitudinal loads as shown in Fig. 30. EN 12663 also details the requirement relating to:       

Fig. 27. Fault free logic for a level crossing accident.

and security as two separate entities when it comes to rail vehicle design. What divides these two words is the intent, i.e.:  Safety can be described as the process of mitigating the effects of unintentional failures in the system.  Security can be defined as the process of mitigating the effects of intentional attacks on the system. Safety standards exist with regard to the design of rail vehicles, but standards have not yet been produced which relate to the security of rolling stock, in particular from terrorist attack. For the purposes of this discussion, both these topics shall be dealt with individually. However the user should be aware that there are a number of common aspects between the two topics which mean they are not entirely mutually exclusive. 5.2. Safety From a safety perspective this discussion will focus on the aspects of crashworthiness in rail vehicles, and will briefly touch upon the issues relating to fire. In all cases the EN standards referenced within this section take precedence should there be a conflict of information. There are two key standards which must be adhered to when it comes to the structural response of rail vehicles:  EN 12663 e “Structural requirements of railway vehicle bodies”.  EN 15227 e “Crashworthiness requirements for railway vehicle bodies” Both these standards group passenger rail vehicles into specific categories (Figs. 28 and 29) 5.2.1. EN 12663 This standard defines the static (proof) loads that a vehicle must withstand without suffering permanent deformation or fracture.

Maximum operating load; Lifting loads; Proof loads for equipment attachments; Fatigue load cases for the vehicle body; Aerodynamic loading; Static and fatigue strengths for materials; Vehicle and equipment vibration.

5.2.2. EN 15227 This standard specifies a number of collision scenarios that a vehicle must safely respond to (Fig. 31). Using as an example a vehicle operating on a regional network with level crossings, it will come under the “Category C-I” (Fig. 29) for crashworthiness purposes. Based on the data in Fig. 31 a Category C-I vehicle must consider the following collision scenarios:  Collision Scenario 1 (CS-1): a collision with an identical train unit at 36 km/h;  Collision Scenario 2 (CS-2): a collision with an 80 tonnes wagon at 36 km/h;  Collision Scenario 3 (CS-3): a collision with a 15 tonnes deformable obstacle at a speed that is 50 km/h below the maximum operational speed of the vehicle, and less than or equal to 110 km/h. Under each of the collision scenarios outlined above, a vehicle’s design for crashworthiness should seek to:  Reduce the risk of overriding;  Absorb collision energy in a controlled manner;  Maintain survival space and structural integrity of the occupied areas. To achieve this, a system of Crash Energy Management (CEM) is employed. This involved designing specific area on the vehicle which will absorb energy in the event of an impact. These areas are generally located in the cab, forward of the driver, and at either end of the passenger coaches. A typical design for CEM in a C-I vehicle is shown in Fig. 32. In this example two sets of energy absorbers are employed to meet the three crash scenario cases. The lower energy absorbers are designed to meet the CS-1 and CS-2 scenarios. The upper energy absorbers are designed to meet the CS-3 impact scenario. 5.2.3. Design for crashworthiness e focus on driver’s cab The starting point for designing a crashworthy driver’s cab is to identify the static loads and the length of structure over which these loads are applied. This will lead to a graph similar to that in Fig. 33 for a C-I vehicle.

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

14

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

Fig. 29. Crashworthiness design categories of railway vehicles. Source: EN 15227.

Very often the Large Deformable Object crash scenario will be the primary driver which defines the forces that the structure should be designed to withstand. Through simulation it can be determined what the peak load FP-LDO for that particular design will be. Using this peak force the graph in Fig. 33 can be extrapolated from right to left to give the required structural strength of the vehicle (Fig. 34) which meets the static and impact loads of the standards. From Fig. 34 we can now begin to design the structure to resist the loads and thereby meet the structural and crashworthy requirements of the EN standards. 5.2.4. Fire This discussion will not go into great detail on the fire aspects of safety. The current standard which is used (although not issued) is EN 45545. In brief, there are three processes which can be implemented to mitigate the effects of fire.  Prevention e This is mainly achieved through material selection and testing;  Detection e This can involve the use of smoke detection systems or other alert mechanisms;  Suppression e This means reducing or hindering the spread of the flames. Systems such as water mist technologies can be implemented, which retard or quench the fire leading to a reduction in smoke.

The primary aim of fire safety is to ensure there is sufficient time to allow for the complete evacuation of all passengers from the vehicle. 5.3. Security The rail network is considered an “open” system. This lends itself to the rapid movement of large numbers of passengers without delays caused by security checks and control. The infrastructure, whilst often enclosed by railings/fencing, is also accessible especially at level crossings are gated walkthroughs. And while this has benefits for users of the system, it can also leave the system vulnerable to attack. A recent study by the SecureMetro EUfunded project highlighted a total of 833 terrorist attacks on railway systems since 1960. Fig. 35 gives a details breakdown of the types of attacks perpetrated on the system. As can be seen from the figures, bombing is the preferred method of attack, with sabotage (especially of railway infrastructure) being the second most common method. More recently attacks on underground systems have come to the fore, with the London and Moscow bombings highlighting the vulnerability of such systems to terrorist attack. 5.3.1. Lines of defence There are six main lines of defence against attack:  Information e the knowledge that the police/investigative forces have concerning potential threat and targets.  Station security e security staff in the stations and on platforms.  CCTV e passenger movement monitoring, early detection of suspicious behaviour or packages.  Detection (sniffer) dogs e to identify luggage/bags which could potentially hold bomb/firebomb materials.  Public vigilance e reporting of suspicious activities or packages.  Vehicle design e the vehicle being designed to mitigate the effects of attack through intelligent design. This discussion will only focus on the vehicle design aspects, which can be embodied at the early design phase of the vehicle. This forms a last line of defence for passengers and staff should all other security systems have been bypassed. To decide how best to design a vehicle to be resilient to blast attack a number of key areas need to be investigated:

Fig. 30. Longitudinal loads for a category P-II vehicle.

 Glass fragmentation e Gaining an understanding of the typical size and dispersion pattern will assist in determining whether

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

15

Fig. 31. Colision scenarios. Source: EN 15227.











glazing can be improved to reduce the number of fatalities or injuries. Door retention e The effects of blast wave mean that most doors on the vehicle will get blown outwards, however, in deep bore tunnel metro systems the blast wave rebounds off the surrounding infrastructure causing some doors to be forced into the vehicle. Manual operation of these doors (if possible) will greatly assist egress. Structural deformation e The main body of the vehicle could be severely compromised. Should this be the case, the design needs to be such that it can withstand a blast in such a manner that it does not become completely destroyed. This will aid emergency services in accessing the vehicle and also allow for swift removal of the vehicle post-incident. Equipment retention e Equipment external to the vehicle such as HVAC, pantographs, etc. have the potential to enter the vehicle should the structure become compromised. Secure retention of this equipment will reduce this possibility and also reduce the likelihood of derailment. Vehicle derailment e Should an attack occur whilst the vehicle is moving, the longitudinal stability post blast should allow for the vehicle to remain on the rails. Interior components e These are the parts of the vehicle most impacted by the blast, in particular the floor/roof panels. The









response of these materials to attack needs to be considered to ensure a reduction of shrapnel quantities. Critical system protection e Systems such as braking and communications should have special protection to ensure they remain functioning post-attack. Driver Protection e One of the key elements in directing and communicating to passengers after an attack is the driver. He acts as the point-of-contact for evacuation, and will be familiar with the vehicle, infrastructure and evacuation points. Reinforcing the driver’s bulkhead will improve driver survivability. Evacuation & egress e Escape routes should be protected/ maintained post attack. This is especially important in deep bore tunnels. Clear signage on the vehicle and infrastructure will allow passengers to escape swiftly and safely. Recovery (injured & system) e This relates primarily to access for emergency crews. The design of the vehicle should be such as to minimise the debris that crews need to negotiate to get to injured passengers.

5.3.2. Design approach There are some key considerations which should be taken into account when it comes to designing a rail vehicle to be more resilient to attack.

Fig. 32. Driver’s cab design approach to CEM.

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011

16

E. Matsika et al. / Research in Transportation Economics xxx (2012) 1e16

Fig. 35. 130 Terrorist attacks on railway systems, 1960e2010. Source: SecureMetro (http://securemetro.inrets.fr/).

Fig. 33. Static loads for C-I vehicle.

Materials: Materials choice and assembly can have a significant effect in reducing injury/fatalities. Reducing shrapnel and the likelihood of penetration (of shrapnel) will alleviate the impact of the blast on passengers further away from the blast source. Glazing films can be used to retain the glass as one piece, prevent it from shattering into a multitude of tiny projectiles. Joints: Introducing flexibility in joints allows movement of structure and fittings without detachment. Strengthening structural joints ensure the vehicle body remains intact. Tethering objects such as speakers and emergency door activation casings to the main structure will help prevent these heavy objects becoming detached.

Fig. 34. Applying the LDO minimum design requirement to the vehicle.

Interior design: “Boxing-in” underneath the seats will prevent the blast wave penetrating into this area and thereby prevent lifting and detachment of seats. Introducing panels such as draught panels by doors and throughout the vehicle disrupts the blast wave and can improve survivability. Whilst none of these techniques guarantee the survivability of blast attacks (as this is heavily dependent on device size, location and passenger density) it is possible, through intelligent and non-intrusive design, to mitigate the effects of such attacks and thereby improve the likelihood of surviving terrorist attacks. References Ale, B. (2009). Risk: An introduction: The concepts of risk, danger and chance. Taylor & Francis Group. Asia Airports News. (2010). http://asia-airports.com/blog/2010/08/its-finally-herebangkok-airport-rail-link-opens-today/ Accessed 07.08.12. BBC. (2012). http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/content/image_galleries/image_gallery_ maglev_train_gallery.shtml Accessed 07.08.12. CENELEC. (2007). Railway applications e The specification and demonstration of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) e Part 2: Guide to the application of EN 50126-1 for safety. Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Railway Safety Directive), 2004. Ecopassenger. (2008). www.ecopassenger.com Accessed 07.08.12. EEA. (2005). Available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/. Ericson, C. (2005). Hazard analysis techniques for system safety. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. In Risk analysis. McConnel, V. P. (December 2008). Rail e an evolving market for FRP components. Reinforced Plastics, 52(11), 24e29. Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents. New York: Basic Books. Railway Technology. (2012a). http://www.railway-technology.com/contractors/ bogies/sct-europe/sct-europe5.html Accessed 07.08.12. Railway Technology. (2012b). DIAB e Sandwich composite cores. Available at http:// www.railway-technology.com/contractors/passenger/diab/diab3.html Accessed 07.08.12. Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press. Rodrigue, J. P., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2009). The geography of transport systems. New York: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-48324-7. Sagan, S. D. (1993). The limits of safety: Organizations, accidents, and nuclear weapons. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schupp, B. A., Smith, S. P., Wright, P., & Goossens, L. H. J. (2004). Integrating human factors in the design of safety critical systems e A barrier based approach, human error, safety and systems development. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sklet, S. (2002). Methods for accident investigation. NTNU. Thai Mass Transportation. (2012). http://thaitransit.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/srtcargo-trains-and-chachoengsao.html Accessed 07.08.12. The Conversation. (2012). http://theconversation.edu.au/shifting-freight-to-railcould-make-the-pacific-highway-safer-4882 Accessed 07.08.12. TPE. (2012). http://www.tpexpress.co.uk/about-ftpe/news-centre/2011/05/moretrains-between-manchester-and-scotland Accessed 07.08.12. UIC, & CER. (June 2008). Rail transport and environment. Facts & Figure. Van Essen, H., Schroten, A., Otten, M., Sutter, D., Schreyer, C., Zandonella, R., et al. (2011). External costs of transport in Europe. Update study for 2008. CE Delft, Infras, Fraunhofer ISI, Publication code 11.4215.50. Working Group Railway Noise of the European Commission. (2003). Position Paper on the European strategies and priorities for railway noise abatement. Luxembourg: European Commission, ISBN 92-894-6055-5.

Please cite this article in press as: Matsika, E., et al., Rail vehicles, environment, safety and security, Research in Transportation Economics (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.11.011